The Sisterhood 50
I’m always afraid of saying anything about women on the internet because obviously I’m a moron with the wrong junk between my legs. But I gravitate toward saying things about rabbis. Especially lists of them. So here we go.
Last month I wrote about Newsweek’s lackluster list of influential rabbis (and a rabba). The folks behind The Forward’s Sisterhood Blog have their own list out this week in response: The Sisterhood 50. In describing this feminist critique of the maleful Newsweek list, The Sisterhood said:
The Sisterhood, the Forward’s women’s issues blog, has twice called attention to the chronic underrepresentation of women on Newsweek’s annual “50 Most Influential Rabbis” list. Compiled by Sony Pictures CEO Michael Lynton and his friend Gary Ginsberg, this year’s Newsweek list had only six women on it — and most of them were on the bottom half of the rankings.
The results got us thinking about all the female rabbis whose influence cannot necessarily be measured by their national/international profile, their media presence or the size of their constituencies — some of the criteria on which Newsweek bases its rankings — but who, nonetheless, are playing important roles in shaping the Jewish story.
When my mom was a kid, she invented the children’s caucus of the Texas feminist something or other (she’ll correct me in the comments, I’m sure), so I grew up with feminism. I like it. I even like saying I’m a feminist myself. So the idea of The Sisterhood 50 appeals to me. Yet, in practice, a lot of it looks like wishful thinking that only serves to prove one point: There just aren’t that many women in influential rabbinic roles.
The list is full of interesting women like Melissa Weintraub (whom I am formerly of a cubicle next to), director of Encounter. But despite being interesting, I question how well her influence measures up to the influence wielded by the men on the Newsweek list. I’d love for Encounter to be a Jewish household name, but it isn’t. I like Encounter, which brings together diverse groups of Jews with Palestinians for dialogue, but I don’t know how influential it is. (I’m open to discussing that point though.)
Some women are on the list for being firsts, which wields a kind of power that male rabbis really can’t. Men in the rabbinate just aren’t going to shatter any more glass ceilings. So the power wielded by women like Alysa Stanton, the first black female rabbi, is of a type you won’t find in the hands of men. But other first women, like Sally Priesand, the first woman rabbi in America, ordained in 1972, aren’t particularly interesting or influential at this point. Outside of the Orthodox world, woman rabbis are commonplace in American synagogue life and they have been for my entire life.
Others, like Julie Schonfeld, the current head of, and first woman to lead, the Conservative movement’s Rabbinical Assembly, or Elyse Frishman, editor of the new Reform siddur Mishkan T’filah, are no-brainers.
The picture painted by this list is either depressing or it points to something I’ve got no evidence for and don’t know enough to talk about.
If it’s depressing, it’s because The Sisterhood 50’s authors couldn’t find 50 female rabbis who actually wield the kind of influence seen on the Newsweek list they’re trying to counterpoint.
It it’s pointing to something interesting, it’s a goofy argument about how women wield a different kind of influence, but I’ll leave that to the comments.
And a note on this obsession with denominational labels on The Sisterhood 50: Who cares? Very few of the women on the list (like Rabba Sara Hurwitz) are in a position where their denomination is particularly interesting at all.
There are names that ought NOT be there.
Rabbi Einat Ramon, who has published remarks that I can only understand to be homophobic, has done the Jewish world a real disservice. She has been forced out as dean of the Israeli Rabbinical School.
She is infamous but her influence has been to destroy a Rabbinical School and cause hurt to so many.
A true feminist can not be agaisnt Gay inclusiveness(Let me clarify: An observant feminist may have difficulties with aspects of Jewish law and homosexuality. But there can be no room for homophobia).
To my mind, part of what makes the Forward’s list great is that it explicitly acknowledges what the Newsweek one doesn’t: that influence takes a variety of forms, and that there are people who are shaping Jewish life today who may not have widespread name recognition or enormous congregations but whose work is important and worth recognizing.
To take Melissa Weintraub as an example, since you mentioned her specifically: it’s true that Encounter isn’t a household name. But I think the work that Encounter does is incredibly important and valuable. Part of the subtext of this list, for me, is that quality matters more than (or in a different way than) quantity. Encounter may not have a huge constituency, but it’s an important part of the Jewish picture.
I don’t find it depressing at all. As a female rabbi (not on the list), I find the Forward 50 to be quite empowering. Here is a group of 50 extraordinary women doing meaningful work in varied types of rabbinates. Women rabbis have changed the model of “success” for a rabbinic career – what was previously understood to be serving as a senior rabbi at a large congregation – for ALL rabbis, regardless of gender.
But despite being interesting, I question how well her influence measures up to the influence wielded by the men on the Newsweek list. I’d love for Encounter to be a Jewish household name, but it isn’t. I like Encounter, which brings together diverse groups of Jews with Palestinians for dialogue, but I don’t know how influential it is. (I’m open to discussing that point though.)
Encounter claims over 750 past participants in its programs, but its influence is far greater than if these were 750 Jews picked at random: many of the participants are rabbis, rabbinical students, etc., and are themselves influential or will become influential in the Jewish world, so Encounter has a role in shaping the perspectives of the Jewish community’s leadership. I think it’s more influential than some large synagogue that just happens to be large.
And a note on this obsession with denominational labels on The Sisterhood 50:
In most cases, the labels on the list are to the denomination in which the rabbis were ordained, not the denomination in which they currently affiliate (if there is a difference).
Yona writes:
There are names that ought NOT be there.
Rabbi Einat Ramon, who has published remarks that I can only understand to be homophobic, has done the Jewish world a real disservice.
Agreed. She belongs on the list only in the same sense that Bernie Madoff belonged on the Forward 50, or that Joseph Stalin belonged as Time Person of the Year.
I don’t think most guys can really claim to have an understanding of feminism until they have a daughter.
How about rabbis we wish were more influential?
Rachel, that’s definitely a fair assessment. Yet influence means influence. And most of these women just don’t have much.
BZ, re: labels. That’s fine. But it should say what they’re doing there.
David, I’m not sure there’s some secret to understanding feminism. I think my belief that women are equal to men pretty well qualifies me to call myself a feminist. Do I have to have a gay child to be in favor of gay rights too?
Reb Yudel, my point exactly. I think we wish some of these women had the kind of influence the men from the Forward list have.
It doesn’t matter to me if a Rabbi is a man or a woman, as long as they’re a feminist.
shmuel, any other criteria for rabbis or just feminism?
@DAMW – influence is hard to measure. At my wedding, way back in 1991, 3 year old cousin Seth asked “Mommy, why is their Rabbi a boy?” in the quiet moment after we all assembled under the huppah. As a result, his rabbi (not one of the women on the list) has had an influence that extended beyond her congregation.
As a teacher or madrich, you can never know which of the kids in the room is the one who will take what you say seriously, remember it, or throw it back in your face at a moment in which you are not living up to it. So the influence of the rabbi might not be connected to the “public influence” her position seems to give her. Which is the kind of mistake we make when we let PR hacks at Sony, bright and aware as they may be, write “50 most influential” lists, like the Newsweek one.
@BZ: I don’t think that comment about Einat is appropriate. I’m surprised at you. Don’t like what she said, or published. But those comparisons don’t stand up to the test of kavod habriyot.
@BZ: I don’t think that comment about Einat is appropriate. I’m surprised at you. Don’t like what she said, or published. But those comparisons don’t stand up to the test of kavod habriyot.
It’s not just about what she said or published, it’s about what she did, which most certainly does not stand up to the test of kevod habriyot.
The point of the comparisons is that “influential” is not the same thing as “good”. One person has the ability to have significant negative influence in the world.
@BZ – thanks for the link to the event. I remember that, but it’s good to know the details. I also disagree with what Rabbi Ramon did. I think her behavior as reported was not appropriate, nor is her position on the issue in line with what I think is right. She seems to have gotten what she deserved for taking the wrong side. As a result of her position, Ziegler students no longer study at Schechter, and she is no longer dean.
But that doesn’t put her on a par with STALIN, for God’s sake! Not even on the same page. Not even in the same BOOK!
@Simcha
I am pretty sure that BZ was not saying that Ramon is as bad as Stalin. Read his comment before yours.
uzi is right. The capacity for rabbis to be influential, whether for good or for bad, is much less than that of national leaders, or people responsible for billions of dollars, and therefore the entire scale has to be adjusted accordingly.
Also, there are other Time Persons of the Year whom I could have mentioned, but I decided to be less inflammatory.
Rabbi Ramon has indeed been influential. But this post call’s the Forward Top 50 a “Feminist critique.”
I think the Ramon may be to Jewish Feminism what Sara Palin is to Radical Feminism (no, I take that back, what Palin is to most anything progressive). BZ was clearly not making a comparison between Stalin and Ramon. But both have been influential and could be on a list that does not distinguish between influential and beneficial.
Allow me to quote (albeit selectively) from Rabbi Ramon’s paper on gender. I am happy to provide the full text to the editorial board of Jewschool upon request.
1. The responsum of Rabbis Dorf-Nevins-Reisner (DNR) rests on the premise that “science has shown us that sexual preference is determined in one’s youth, it is not a choice nor is it alterable.” Yet, anthropologists and most homo-lesbian thinkers, as well as most homosexuals interviewed in the press, emphasize the cultural root of the homosexual preference and the sexual fluidity of all individuals, and therefore they confirm that this sexual identity is a choice
Moreover, this breaking with Halakha for the benefit of homosexuals is unjust and discriminatory towards the other groups for whom we do not break with Halakha, who commit less serious transgressions than forbidden sexual relations, such as profaning Shabbat in public, not eating kosher, and others.
, if we define “homosexual relations” so narrowly, thus allowing same-gender marriage, then morally we are bound to apply the DNR in all cases of sexual Halakhic prohibitions (e.g., incest), as long as such relations are between two consenting adults.
The Schechter Rabbinical Seminary must train rabbis, educators and counselors to aid in masculine and feminine identity formation at a young age – identity that reflects self confidence and possesses tools for entering into long term relationships between men and women. This venture must aim to eradicate sexual irresponsibility between men and women, reduce divorce rates, and foster understanding and respect between man and woman, based on cooperation and mutual respect between those who are different. This undertaking is vast and great, and I, as Dean, call upon our donors to help us at SRS institute a program for young children through to adolescents, throughout Israel and the world, in order to revitalize the Jewish institution of marriage.
If the Masorti Movement in Israel and its Seminary follow the path laid out by DNR…We would be obliged, out of intellectual honesty and fairness, to unite with the Movement for Progressive Judaism, at least in Israel. In this scenario it would be appropriate, in fairness to other non-Halakhic groups, to immediately lift all Halakhic bans on profaning Shabbat, eating non-kosher food, intermarrying, etc., which are less weighty prohibitions from the Jewish Halakhic standpoint.
. It is important to stress that we respect rabbis in the Conservative Movement who adopt a different view and we will graciously accept and advance students from all seminaries abroad, without regard to sexual identity or gender and Halakhic positions, as long as these students respect our unique worldview and do not apply political pressure to change it.
I think, if I understand it correctly, BZ’s point is that “influence” does not necessarily have to be positive. What ME posted is informative and instructive towards Ramon’s views, but what she wrote in that paper pales in comparison to spoken words in personal conversation she has produced. This paper makes her seem moderate or compassionate and in my personal opinion from my personal interactions and from what I’ve heard from others, she is far from moderate or compassionate on this issue.
It also needs to be stated that in no way, shape or form was the homosexuality issue the impetus for Ziegler moving their Israel year to the Conservative Yeshiva. Rather, the administration of ZSRS felt that the culture of learning at CY was more in line with the culture of ZSRS. Having been in the last class from ZSRS to learn at SRS I can tell you that the cultures are not compatible. From why I’ve heard from colleagues at CY from the inaugural class there, it is much more in line with the the goals and learning style of ZSRS.
Which part of the paper makes her seem moderate or compassionate? The part about how if we teach our children stronger gender identity then they’ll be inoculated against catching the gay virus, or the part about how anyone who thinks that gay people can be rabbis is intellectually obligated to eat non-kosher food?
If you want to see a statement that is “moderate and compassionate” (without accepting any of the halachic conclusions of DNR or others), look no further than here.
*why I’ve heard=what I’ve heard
Justin is correct that about the switch of Ziegler students to CY. However this year several JTS students made the switch from Schechter to CY in the middle of the year citing the issue regarding homosexual acceptance.
@bz
I agree w you. Perhaps I shouldve said “more” moderate she is in fact more extreme than even that writing
In 1973, I realized that the kids who were dragged to this women’s convention were entitled to form a caucus, and we were therefore entitled to elect a representative to the governing board. So, we elected me, and I became the youngest person to sit on the Policy Council of the Texas Women’s Political Caucus.
My most significant achievement was making the TWPC Policy Council’s monthly meeting non-smoking.
Times were different.